NationStates Jolt Archive

Whereas the supply of petroleum is finite and non-renewable, and,

Whereas this supply is projected to be depleted within 100 years and the production to peak within 40 years, and,

Whereas petroleum is necessary for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Whereas we have come to depend on such products, and,

Whereas the global economy has a high dependency on oil and is adversely affected by shortages in oil, and,

Whereas the main consumption of petroleum is in its use as a fuel, and,

Whereas current consumption rates of petroleum cannot be sustained due to use as such, and,

Affirming the previous resolution "Alternative Fuels", and,

Recognising the need for new fuel and energy technologies, therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Urges all nations to recognise the finite nature of our petroleum resources,

Recognizes that limited time is available to act in this matter,

Resolves to increase resources to develop new fuel technologies,

Calls upon member nations to begin to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges the recycling of plastics and other petroleum products as much as possible and the minimising of the waste of such,

Urges oil producing nations to set aside large reserves of oil for manufacture of chemical products, such as plastic,

Urges all member nations to reduce their dependency on petroleum for fuel and electricity generation,

Urges increased spending on research into new fuels and means of electricity generation,

Authorises incentives to aid nations and corporations in carrying out such, and,

Calls upon national governments, power generation companies, aircraft manufacturers, aircraft engine manufacturers, automobile manufacturers and other industries with involvements in energy and fuels to phase out petroleum engines/generators in favour of existing alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel cells, increase current fuel efficiency standards, and to actively participate in alternative fuel research.


DRAFT 1 - CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM

Whereas the supply of petroleum is finite, and,

Whereas petroleum are necessary for the manufacture of countless chemical products we take for granted, such as polyester and plastic, and,

Whereas we have come to depend on such products, and,

Whereas the main consumption of petroleum is in its use as a fuel, and,

Whereas current consumption rates of petroleum cannot be sustained due to use as such, and,

Affirming the previous resolution "Alternative Fuels", therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Calls upon all members to recognise the finite nature of our petroleum resources,

Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges that all remaining petroleum reserves be set aside solely for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Urges all member nations to switch to presently available renewable sources of energy such as hydroelectric, tidal, wind and solar power,

Urges increased spending on research into new fuels and means of electricity generation, and,

Calls upon national governments, power generation companies, and automobile manufacturers to phase out petroleum engines/generators in favour of existing alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel cells, and to actively participate in alternative fuel research.

His Holiness the Governor-General voices his support for this most necessary of resolutions.

The Dominion of North-East Cathanistan is proud to currently be using alternative fuel sources, derived from our agricultural sciences, in an experimental capacity, and all Cathanistani look forward to a permanent end to foreign fuel dependence.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of Noth East Cathanistan

I like this, it seems like a good idea. I would suggest that an operative clause be added urging businesses to cooperate, and one to encourage moderation in manufacture of petroleum-based products.

Instead of penalising nations with large automobile manufacturing countries how about adding an incentive for adapting cars to new fuel sources so that these nations won't be disadvantaged

The PRoGG approves this resolution wholeheartedly.

We recommend that the amendments as given by Myopia will be incorporated in the next draft. When this is submitted, we will give every support we can to this resolution.

Regards,
PRoGG UN Ambassador

The Democratic States of Enripta would like to voice out its support for this proposal. This proposal will lead to a worldwide reduction in air pollution caused by petroleum and its by-products.

The Enriptan Ambassador to the UN

Noted by:
Foreign Minister T. Khushrenada

Hmm.

We think that a clause should be inserted committing to cut down on the more wasteful usages of plastics, if preventing the exhaustion of plastics is its aim. At present, plastics are used incredibly carelessly in many nations - they are used in most disposable products, in excessive packaging and so forth. As it stands, this proposal's aim is good, but its approach is unilateral - it only addresses cutting fuel consumption. This is well and good, but it seems to be shooting yourself in the foot to reduce fuel consumption but not cut back on plastics wastage as well.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry

Sorry it took so long.

Okay, here's a second draft. I don't think we should stop using plastics for packaging, however, since they have the advantage of strength and waterproofing that other common packaging materials, like paper, do not. And most cloth bags are partially made of petroleum products (nylon) anyway. So instead I wrote in increased recycling of plastics.

DRAFT 2 - CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM

Whereas the supply of petroleum is finite, and,

Whereas petroleum is necessary for the manufacture of countless chemical products we take for granted, such as polyester and plastic, and,

Whereas we have come to depend on such products, and,

Whereas the main consumption of petroleum is in its use as a fuel, and,

Whereas current consumption rates of petroleum cannot be sustained due to use as such, and,

Affirming the previous resolution "Alternative Fuels", therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Calls upon all members to recognise the finite nature of our petroleum resources,

Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges that all remaining petroleum reserves be set aside solely for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Urges the recycling of plastics and other petroleum products as much as possible and the minimising of the waste of such,

Urges all member nations to switch to presently available renewable sources of energy such as hydroelectric, tidal, wind and solar power,

Urges increased spending on research into new fuels and means of electricity generation,

Authorises incentives to aid nations and corporations in carrying out such, and,

Calls upon national governments, power generation companies, and automobile manufacturers to phase out petroleum engines/generators in favour of existing alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel cells, and to actively participate in alternative fuel research.

Bump, this is the final draft.

DRAFT 3 - CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM

Whereas the supply of petroleum is finite and non-renewable, and,

Whereas this supply is projected to be depleted within 50 years, and,

Whereas petroleum is necessary for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Whereas we have come to depend on such products, and,

Whereas the main consumption of petroleum is in its use as a fuel, and,

Whereas current consumption rates of petroleum cannot be sustained due to use as such, and,

Affirming the previous resolution "Alternative Fuels", therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Calls upon all members to recognise the finite nature of our petroleum resources,

Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges that all remaining petroleum reserves be set aside solely for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Urges the recycling of plastics and other petroleum products as much as possible and the minimising of the waste of such,

Urges all member nations to switch to presently available renewable sources of energy such as hydroelectric, tidal, wind and solar power,

Urges increased spending on research into new fuels and means of electricity generation,

Authorises incentives to aid nations and corporations in carrying out such, and,

Calls upon national governments, power generation companies, and automobile manufacturers to phase out petroleum engines/generators in favour of existing alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel cells, and to actively participate in alternative fuel research.

you'll have my support when the proposal is submitted.

The President of Benjamini

I as representative of the Tekanian Republic would like to address my concerns on this resolution, of which, as written I would have to vote against.

This resolution call for a complete phase out of pertroleum based fuel products. Tekania cannot support such an agenda.

Tekania is proud of her achievments in fuel conservation. Hybrid vehicles are about all that's left. Our electricity is exclusively Nuclear and Hydroelectric.

Our hybrid diesel-electric and gasoline-electric vehicles still use pertroleum based fuels, however at a much reduced rate of consumption then normal engines.

There are currenltly no alternatives to the JP line of refined kerosine products, of which is necessary to keep our aircraft in the air.

Alternative fuels such as the well known "bio-diesel" have shown to have even worse green-house level enviromental impact. These fuels release less of the green-house gas CO2, actually 1/2 as much, but as such more then 4 times the ammount of NO2 (Nitrous Oxide) which is a gas 12 times as potent as it's petroleum cousin.

Other alternative technologies also present a problem in terms of transportation concerns, natural gas vehicles pose more potent saftey concerns. And the hydrogen-fuel-cell technology is years and years away from practicle use as a transportation power driving mechanism.

In addition the use of diesel and JP is also heavy in military use. Diesel drives many of our troop units, it is the secondary source of power in our submarine force, and is still used on many other landing craft and the whole like. JP as used in gas-turbine systems is used in tanks now, as well as on frigates and cruisers.

The reason for this concern is as such, we cannot reliably implement a phase out plan or resolution, unless there are viable practicle alternatives. We cannot rely souly upon hypothetic and untested alternatives when we are talking about the driving force behind our economy and industry. We in the U.N. are supposed to be world leaders, we must do our homework before acting. The world is not at a point where this proposal, as writen, can stand upon. I would support a resolution for the furtherment of research into alternatives. But at this point cannot authorize or support any type of phase-out unless we have the alternatives, in practicle working order already.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

The Federation of Winterbane will side with Tekania on this issue.

We will not vote in favor of this resolution unless the part calling for a complete phaseout is removed and the calls for petroleum conservation is moderated.

I don't have a problem with phasing out petroleum products.
We're going to have to discover alternate sources of fuel or mechanics at some point anyway. Wouldn't it be easier to lower our dependancy on fossil fuels on our own terms before we are forced to do it by lack of resources?

Cabinia shares Tekania's concerns. Cabinia supports much of this proposal, except for a couple of glaring flaws:

"Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges that all remaining petroleum reserves be set aside solely for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,"

A member state cannot "phase out" petroleum use if all remaining petroleum is reserved specifically for manufacture. In addition, Tekania's points about the necessity of petroleum fuels in certain sectors is a valid concern. Some areas yet exist where phasing out does not work at all, as there is no viable alternative.

"Urges all member nations to switch to presently available renewable sources of energy such as hydroelectric, tidal, wind and solar power,"

Cabinia has made extensive use of hydroelectric power, but not all nations have this option. The other three forms of power generation you have mentioned are simply inadequate for the needs of an industrialized nation. In any event, we wonder why this was included at all in a bill for petroleum preservation... the primary alternative methods of power generation use uranium, coal, or natural gas. Cost/benefit has traditionally excluded petroleum products from this area of the marketplace. The line quoted above has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill's stated purpose.

In its present form Cabinia simply cannot support this proposal.

@Kelssek,

we reject your proposal. What you say is simply wrong. Given the known ressources of oil, there is enough for 200 years giving the present consumtion levels. There are huge reserves in the oceans of Nation states, at the poles under the ice and inside of oil slick. The exploitation of this ressource however does only make sense if the oil price is in the long-run on the current high level or even higher, since it is very costly to get this ressources. However: with the progress of technology it might get cheaper.
But we also admitt: you are right in the statements that loi, like all ressources (gas, coal, e.g.) it is not unlimitted there. We have nothing againt a responsible and careful use of that ressource.
My country has doubled its economic output in the last years but has decreased the use of oil. We used other form of energy, such as nuclear power plants, gas, coal and to a certain degree water power.
We reject that your proposal is demanding the use of all forms of renewable energy. In our country, we don´t have much sunny days. Solar technologysimply doesn´t make sense here. We also reject the use of wind turbines at our soil, since experiments with them have proven that they are killing birds like the kaoelds and the gelds.
Therefore we have decided not to use that technology.
Countries should be free what form of energy the use. Why we agree that we should act to ensure a more careful use of oil, we think your restrictions are going much to far. That is unnecessary. Much less would do as well, wouldn´t cause so many problems in and between countries and in their economics. And furthernmore we reject that you are stating what other energies countries should use.
We should be free to determine that by ourself. Whether countries are reducing the use of oil through energy-saving, more nuclear power, more gas, more coal, more water power, more solar power, more wind power or something else or any combination of the above mentioned methods should remain in their national souvereignity.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

200 years is a very optimistic estimate, and assumes consumption is going to remain the same when in fact it is increasing at an alarming rate. Generally, taking into account the rate at which consumption is increasing and the coming industrialisation of many nations (RL example: China, India), this increase is going to be explosive. The general consensus is that we'll be out of oil in 60-90 years, possibly earlier. And before that happens, petroleum and all its associated products will cost a lot due to scarcity.

Think of all the petrol products we depend on. Chiefly plastics - which by itself is a lot; in just my field of view, looking at this monitor, I can see 22 things right now which are made of plastic, but also many polymers used in science and medicine, cosmetic products, detergent, cosmetic products, polyester (chances are that you're wearing some of it right now), and it's also necessary for modern agriculture, which needs tractors and machinery, and also chemical insecticide and herbicide, both of which are petroleum products. I sure wouldn't want to not have the above.

Cabinia:

"Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,"

Which means, stop burning it so that we can still have plastic in 200 years. It doesn't say "stop using all petroluem, period."

I included the methods just as an example. Yes, I know uranium is an alternative too. Natural gas isn't really an alternative since it comes from oil, and coal causes extreme air pollution.

It does have to do with the proposal's purpose - to stop depletion of petroleum. Most of the petroleum being used is for fuel in power plants and vehicles. If you cut down on that, the depletion slows down.

And Tekania, the importance of oil is exactly the problem, because it WILL eventually run out, which is why we need to cut down on usage and pump money into developing these "hypothetical" solutions into serious, practical, cost-effective energy sources.

This phase-out cannot happen immediately and I know it's impossible to do it within a few years - such a major thing has to be done gradually, over a few decades, but you have to start sometime. What better time than now, while we still have oil to spare? If we put it off too long, it will be too late.

It's been said that people only react to extreme situations - "Who'd have given a damn if Hitler had only killed 5,000 Jews?". Well, one is coming up in the near future, and if we start now, we can soften or even avert a crisis 60 years down the road. Seems like a long time, but most of us will still be alive then.

Also, Kybernetia, since this isn't a "law" proposal, I don't think it'd trample on national sovereignity. For RL, the last large mostly-untapped reserve is in the Caspian, and when that's gone... most other reserves will have very low yields, like the Alaskan forest - the entire field will only provide a 6-month oil supply for just the United States.

But the problem is, it will be cost effective to drill for oil there because by that time, you'll be seeing oil prices at $60 a barrel and your petrol will be $4 a litre, which would be about $12 a gallon. None of us wants that, and that doesn't solve the problem, that eventually, no matter how much we drill, we will use up all the oil.

This is what I mean.

....This resolution is basically calling for the UN member nations to stop using petroleum as fuel.

Here are some questions:
Have you researched the cost for member nations to utilize other means for fuel?
Are you willing to subsidize countries who cannot pay these costs to convert nor have the technology to do so?
Can you globally force companies that operate within and outside UN nations to phase out the use of petroleum?


In essence, I'm saying that I like the thought behind this resolution, but like many others, doesn't consider the effect it will have on countries dependent on petroleum(both imports and exports). Instead, it says 'phase out' and 'other means'.

What would be ideal, in my opinion, would be the creation of a dept within the UN to help countries dependent upon petroleum fuel utilize other methods. This Dept could be call the Energy Conservation Dept and could help member nations as they seek to 'phase out' petroleum. It would also help those nations that export petroleum as their major commodity in dealing with the decreasing demand for petroleum.

However, this resolution doesn't speak to either of these very real issues and will not have my vote.

This is what I mean.

....This resolution is basically calling for the UN member nations to stop using petroleum as fuel.

Here are some questions:
Have you researched the cost for member nations to utilize other means for fuel?
Are you willing to subsidize countries who cannot pay these costs to convert nor have the technology to do so?
Can you globally force companies that operate within and outside UN nations to phase out the use of petroleum?


In essence, I'm saying that I like the thought behind this resolution, but like many others, doesn't consider the effect it will have on countries dependent on petroleum(both imports and exports). Instead, it says 'phase out' and 'other means'.

What would be ideal, in my opinion, would be the creation of a dept within the UN to help countries dependent upon petroleum fuel utilize other methods. This Dept could be call the Energy Conservation Dept and could help member nations as they seek to 'phase out' petroleum. It would also help those nations that export petroleum as their major commodity in dealing with the decreasing demand for petroleum.

However, this resolution doesn't speak to either of these very real issues and will not have my vote.

Cabinia:

"Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,"

Which means, stop burning it so that we can still have plastic in 200 years. It doesn't say "stop using all petroluem, period."

My peer from Kelssek has still failed to answer the question on jet fuels and their lack of available alternatives.

I included the methods just as an example. Yes, I know uranium is an alternative too. Natural gas isn't really an alternative since it comes from oil, and coal causes extreme air pollution.

It does have to do with the proposal's purpose - to stop depletion of petroleum. Most of the petroleum being used is for fuel in power plants and vehicles. If you cut down on that, the depletion slows down.

Perhaps this proposal would make more sense if it was written by someone who actually understands fossil fuels. Natural gas is not derived from refined petroleum. Its very name gives it away... natural gas deposits occur in nature. It requires no refining.

Therefore, natural gas generators do not burn petroleum, and preserving natural gas would do nothing to ensure plastics are available to future generations. Once again, this portion of the measure does not have anything whatsoever to do with the measure's stated purpose.

And while we're on the subject of understanding fossil fuels, it is worth mentioning that the petroleum products used in manufacture are not the ones being burned for fuel. When petroleum is distilled, approximately 75% of the yield is a fuel product (gasoline, fuel oil, and jet fuel). The other 25% yields products for various uses, some for manufacture. This proposal aims to destroy the market for 75% of the yield of a barrel of oil. The oil companies would be forced to recoup the lost revenues with skyrocketing prices for the remaining petroleum products, creating the very price increases in cosmetics and plastics this bill seeks to avoid. The remaining 75% of a barrel of oil would be toxic waste, and have to be disposed of in some manner.

This measure does not aim to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather, this one throws out the baby but preserves the bathwater, as a breeding ground for mosquitos.

Dear members:

While I agree with the goals set by this proposal, I do not find myself in agreement to the terms.

1. Developing nations do not currently have at their disposal the means to research, invest, or change their current petroleum usage.
2. Our government would gladly provide incentives for changing to alternative fuels, but we can barely afford to keep our police. How then can we pay for such incentives?
3. Alternative fuels need to be futher researched and developed before we can even address the issue of consupmtion phase-out.

I hereby suggest that this proposal be re-written, setting several immediate goals that can be achieved over the course of a decade, and petroleum reduction be revisited at a date no later than 10 years from the passing of this resolution.

My peer from Kelssek has still failed to answer the question on jet fuels and their lack of available alternatives.

That's why I said "phase out", not "stop". And since there's no alternative, all the more we need to start seriously developing one - "Urges increased spending on research into new fuels". You can't keep using something which will run out just because there's no alternative.

Perhaps this proposal would make more sense if it was written by someone who actually understands fossil fuels. Natural gas is not derived from refined petroleum. Its very name gives it away... natural gas deposits occur in nature. It requires no refining.

Yes, but it's still a nonrenewable fossil fuel, which means it can't be a good alternative, and it is related to oil in that they are always found together and have the same hydrocarbon makeup, and are formed together. But this is moot, we're talking about excluding it from a list of examples. This has little to do with the actual proposal.

And while we're on the subject of understanding fossil fuels, it is worth mentioning that the petroleum products used in manufacture are not the ones being burned for fuel. When petroleum is distilled, approximately 75% of the yield is a fuel product (gasoline, fuel oil, and jet fuel).

This yield is done in response to demand, because the biggest use of oil is as fuel. If you simply refine it and do nothing, you get only about 30% gasoline. Other petrol fractions are either cracked or polymerised to make them into gasoline molecules, so that more of it becomes gasoline (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/513refining2.html).

So yes, in fact, we ARE burning hydrocarbons that could be used in manufacture.

If we were to immediately stop using gasoline and kerosene (which is NOT what I'm proposing), which is fuel for cars and jets respectively, it doesn't mean we'll have all this leftover oil we have to dump somewhere; it can be converted to chemcials suitable for other uses - like making polyester, polyurethane, etc.

The reason we need to start reducing and researching now is that we will reach the peak of global oil production by 2050, by the most optimistic estimate after which it will decline. We have time to reduce consumption and research alternatives while still being able to use oil. If we start later, we might not have enough time. The situation doesn't seem critical now, but it soon will be.

Well...my post was pretty much ignored.


Here are the questions i have...


Have you researched the cost for member nations to utilize other means for fuel?
Are you willing to subsidize countries who cannot pay these costs to convert nor have the technology to do so?
Can you globally force companies that operate within and outside UN nations to phase out the use of petroleum?


...please respond.

Have you researched the cost for member nations to utilize other means for fuel?

No, but you can expect such a fundamental change in energy source to have huge costs. Yet this cost is more than worth it, because we cannot be reliant on something that will run out in the near future, and if we don't spend now, the cost will only increase as we get nearer to the day when it is all exhausted.

Are you willing to subsidize countries who cannot pay these costs to convert nor have the technology to do so?

Yes. The proposal "Authorises incentives to aid nations and corporations in carrying out such."

Can you globally force companies that operate within and outside UN nations to phase out the use of petroleum?

Depends on the nation in which they are incorporated. Those incorporated in a UN member nation will have to comply with whatever steps individual governments take to comply with the resolution. Those incorporated outside will not, and we have no way to force them to. Still, the UN is the only international body, and represents a large chunk of oil consumption. I am sure that the oil reserves within the UN are sufficient to fulfil the intent of the resolution - to perpetuate the supply of petrochemical products and reduce oil dependency - even if non-members continue present comsumption.

My country currently practices enviromental practices and is looking for alternative energies which can be used. We will support the resolution as it does not demand but urges others to follow in suit.

Ezzee
President of Kazooland.

It is too immediate.

When are people going to realize, especially far-left environmentalists, that you can't just "switch".

It would take, by my and experts'(actual, real life ones) estimations, something like 10-15 years, at minimum, to switch over to an alternative source of fuel for the majority of motor vehicles. That would be rushing it though.

Imagine, if you will, the changes necessary: Gas stations would have to be either converted or torn down, older gas-powered vehicles would have to be put out of service or commissioned to use an alternative source themselves, consumers would have to accept the new vehicles, etc.

Ideally you would "phase out" petroleum usage in around 40-50 years, by the end of that time period, you would likely be able to forgo gas altogether except as a specialty item for classic cars and other old, old vehicles.

When are people going to realize, especially far-left environmentalists, that you can't just "switch".

I do realise that. - "Calls upon member nations to phase out use of petroleum as fuel."

It would take, by my and experts'(actual, real life ones) estimations, something like 10-15 years, at minimum, to switch over to an alternative source of fuel for the majority of motor vehicles. That would be rushing it though.

And experts also predict that oil production will peak in about 20 years, one British scientist says in just two years. We don't have time to lose, and we will need to switch at sometime in the future, no matter what. What better time to start than now?

Ideally you would "phase out" petroleum usage in around 40-50 years, by the end of that time period, you would likely be able to forgo gas altogether except as a specialty item for classic cars and other old, old vehicles.

...which is what I'm hoping for with this proposal. I don't think we disagree that much.

My peer from Kelssek has still failed to answer the question on jet fuels and their lack of available alternatives.

That's why I said "phase out", not "stop". And since there's no alternative, all the more we need to start seriously developing one - "Urges increased spending on research into new fuels". You can't keep using something which will run out just because there's no alternative.

But then your measure says, in its very next line, to reserve petrol for manufacturing use only. Which is the same as saying "you can't use it for fuel any longer."

Perhaps this proposal would make more sense if it was written by someone who actually understands fossil fuels. Natural gas is not derived from refined petroleum. Its very name gives it away... natural gas deposits occur in nature. It requires no refining.

Yes, but it's still a nonrenewable fossil fuel, which means it can't be a good alternative, and it is related to oil in that they are always found together and have the same hydrocarbon makeup, and are formed together. But this is moot, we're talking about excluding it from a list of examples. This has little to do with the actual proposal.

If it has little to do with the actual proposal, then it should be taken out of the proposal. This measure is about preserving petroleum for manufacturing use. If it were about carbon emissions, then it would be the right place to talk about limiting natural gas and coal use in power generation. But it's not, and petroleum products are not burned to generate power. Power generation is therefore irrelevant to this measure.

And while we're on the subject of understanding fossil fuels, it is worth mentioning that the petroleum products used in manufacture are not the ones being burned for fuel. When petroleum is distilled, approximately 75% of the yield is a fuel product (gasoline, fuel oil, and jet fuel).

This yield is done in response to demand, because the biggest use of oil is as fuel. If you simply refine it and do nothing, you get only about 30% gasoline. Other petrol fractions are either cracked or polymerised to make them into gasoline molecules, so that more of it becomes gasoline (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/513refining2.html).

So yes, in fact, we ARE burning hydrocarbons that could be used in manufacture.

Err... no. Your link describes heating oil (aka fuel oil) being cracked for gasoline. If it were not converted to gasoline, it would be burned instead by old furnaces, gas turbine engines, and diesel engines. In other words, it would undergo combustion regardless.

Unfortunately, your link is a bit vague about the input components to the other processes.

If we were to immediately stop using gasoline and kerosene (which is NOT what I'm proposing), which is fuel for cars and jets respectively, it doesn't mean we'll have all this leftover oil we have to dump somewhere; it can be converted to chemcials suitable for other uses - like making polyester, polyurethane, etc.

Kerosene is not jet fuel. Kerosene is a separate component of petroleum.

And now I think we've fully established that the author of this measure has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about, so any of you who would wish to support this measure may act appropriately.

And now I think we've fully established that the author of this measure has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about, so any of you who would wish to support this measure may act appropriately.

Good to see that the honourable delegate from Cabinia is maintaining his usual level of decorum.

Kerosene is not jet fuel. Kerosene is a separate component of petroleum


Yes and no. Depending on which jet fuel you are reffering to.

JP-1, also known as Jet-A is pure kerosene. It's what drives most commercial airliners.

JP-4 is a gasoline kerosine mix. As is JP-5, they are differentiated by their flashpoints.

JP-8 is a kerosene base with chemicals added to reduce contrails and smoke.

JP-7, the special purpose fuel used in the A-12 Oxcart her sister the YF-12 Interceptor, and their successor the SR-71 has flurocarbons added, to give it alot more elasticity.... and can handle temps so high it could be used to douse fires....

In the end all current military and commercial application jet fuels are totally, or in part, Kerosene fuel oil.


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)
http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania
"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I stand corrected on the relationship between jet fuel and kerosene. My research department provided the table depicted here: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html

And based on that table I incorrectly assumed that, since jet fuels and kerosene were listed separately, that they were two very different products. I thank my peer from Tekania for correcting my mistake.

But then your measure says, in its very next line, to reserve petrol for manufacturing use only. Which is the same as saying "you can't use it for fuel any longer."

I'll change it then. That wasn't what I wanted.

But it's not, and petroleum products are not burned to generate power. Power generation is therefore irrelevant to this measure.

Petroleum is, in fact, used in power generation, and so I think it's very relevant.

Unfortunately, your link is a bit vague about the input components to the other processes.

I'll dig up another link later but unless my entire year of chemistry class was a con job, you can take it from me that if you wanted to, you can convert gasoline to make plastics.

edit: Okay, here's a link that explains the process - http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining5.htm

I have a question about this proposal. What is the stance of it in regards to nuclear power plants? You mention 'Renewable' and 'Oil-related' but not Nuclear, which is neither oil related nor renewable -- we only have a fixed supply of radioisotopes, though if someone could get fusion to the ignition point, we can use the deuterium in seawater with manufactured tritium. Better yet if we can mine the Moon for Helium-3. But of course, tis is in the future.

Minister Mar Darneka
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn

But it's not, and petroleum products are not burned to generate power. Power generation is therefore irrelevant to this measure.

Petroleum is, in fact, used in power generation, and so I think it's very relevant.

We can continue to argue in a circle about the combustion of petrochemicals for power generation purposes, or we can deliver some hard evidence. Like this, which shows power generated from many sources, none petrochemical: http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/ezjqbq7ttlwwqvp6lt2rbczzk3mm2ypzw7ya4ba2ecrjdqcrn3pdwhybmgzzpuiqgg5qed5x44hjseems6civoqznse/April04PCL-REV.pdf

It is possible to use fuel oils to turn generators or to fuel boiler generators. In the case of a boiler, the energy transfer is so inefficient and the technology so prone to failure that it has disappeared from all but the most backward of countries. As for fuel oils, the far greater cost means that natural gas is overwhelmingly favored.

You mention 'Renewable' and 'Oil-related' but not Nuclear, which is neither oil related nor renewable.

Yes, but a shortage of uranium is far into the future. The global economy also does not depend on uranium, nor are there countless important products made from it. Power generation is an issue, but only as far as it relates to the consumption of oil. The proposal is primarily concerned with oil and the depletion of it.

To Cabinina: Petrol is still used as fuel for power generation, and more widely than you suggest. But yes, you're right in saying its use is declining.

Like I've said, Tekania is primarily centered around the use of hybrid diesel-electric/gas-electric technologies to improve fuel consumption by using existing off-the-shelf technologies. (We can pull V-8 performance out of a V-6 engine with the fuel consumption of a sub-compact car. 47+ MPG. Also we've implimented technology to absorb breaking power to recharge the batteries.) This is out interim sollution till other alternative technologies are perfected. We also use Hybrid technologies in our APC's and other military ground transports. The only areas we have not found replacements in are gas-turbine based warships, gas-turbine tanks and aircraft. Some of our plans include phasing out the gas-turbine cruisers and replacing them with nuclear powered cruisers, this is not a quick solution, as it takes a long time to get these ships replaced due to constructon and testing time. Destroyers and frigates are another story, as our engineers have not figured out a reliable and reasonable way to get nuclear propulsion into those types of vessels without sacrificing it's necessary capabilities. No reasonable solution is available at all for the tanks, and also none for commercial and military aircraft. We are willing to vote for this resolution as a recomendation, but we cannot gurantee any time frame on full phase out of petroleum (there are simply gaps and actually entire missing technologies that may or may not be solvable).


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)
http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania
"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

There have been significant changes to the wording, though the intent and the core of the proposal remains the same.

DRAFT 4 - CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM

Whereas the supply of petroleum is finite and non-renewable, and,

Whereas this supply is projected to be depleted within 100 years and the production to peak within 40 years, and,

Whereas petroleum is necessary for the manufacture of products derived from petroleum chemicals,

Whereas we have come to depend on such products, and,

Whereas the global economy has a high dependency on oil and is adversely affected by shortages in oil, and,

Whereas the main consumption of petroleum is in its use as a fuel, and,

Whereas current consumption rates of petroleum cannot be sustained due to use as such, and,

Affirming the previous resolution "Alternative Fuels", and,

Recognising the need for new fuel and energy technologies, therefore,

The United Nations, in council assembled,

Urges all nations to recognise the finite nature of our petroleum resources,

Recognizes that limited time is available to act in this matter,

Resolves to increase resources to develop new fuel technologies,

Calls upon member nations to begin to phase out use of petroleum as fuel,

Urges the recycling of plastics and other petroleum products as much as possible and the minimising of the waste of such,

Urges oil producing nations to set aside large reserves of oil for manufacture of chemical products, such as plastic,

Urges all member nations to reduce their dependency on petroleum for fuel and electricity generation,

Urges increased spending on research into new fuels and means of electricity generation,

Authorises incentives to aid nations and corporations in carrying out such, and,

Calls upon national governments, power generation companies, aircraft manufacturers, aircraft engine manufacturers, automobile manufacturers and other industries with involvements in energy and fuels to phase out petroleum engines/generators in favour of existing alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel cells, increase current fuel efficiency standards, and to actively participate in alternative fuel research.

Submitted. I've decided to put it under "environmental protection" with auto manufacturing as the affected industry, since the others didn't really fit well.

Bump! 125 more needed with a bit less than 2 days to go.

An uncommonly excellent proposal, though my opinion may simply reflect my technocratic bias when it comes to matters of national infrastructure.

In real life, the depletion timescales are somewhat shorter, complete depletion being asymptotic and hence arbitrary, but peak occuring within 5 years. Nonetheless, this is a game, so that's a minor quibble.

And so I back this as I would back any Proposal legislating greater resource exploitation efficiency.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Thank you for the compliment, and for giving me an excuse for a shameless bump.

Failed with 37 approvals. Resubmit on 16 June.

Resubmitted, expires Friday.